Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[CosmicJellyfish]

That does not change that freedom of speech includes speech that is repugnant.

Anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.
No one is at work 24/7/365.
People don't cease to exist outside the workplace.

If the anti-discrimination laws that have been around since the 1960s are so detrimental to free speech, then how have people been getting away with expressing racist views for the last 80 years?

It does not make it ok to compel someone to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

No one has to do that. Like all those people who didn't want to serve black people in the '60s, they are free do something else for a living.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

The US went through that before... twice. Took 100 years for women to vote. It took 58 years to get the ball rolling from Plessy to Brown, then the Civil Rights Act and the application of interstate commerce. The problem with your principle based opinion is it creates islands. It could create large islands of prohibition. When I say "could" I mean, it did and will again.

This is porno all over again. The issue here is that bigoted people want to consider obscenity as anything they personally want to consider obscene. But the reality is, it isn't about obscenity at all, it is about bigotry against a class of people. And that bigotry is currently being given a pathway into the future via this legal hack. The arguments being made at the moment are camel noses under the tent that will expand the rights of individuals to interfere in the rights of minorities in receiving access to services they should have access to. Seriously, is hand crafting a cake and selling it, verses hand crafting a cake and writing two male names on a cake any different?

They are chipping at the stone and you are too trapped in the principle illusion they are putting together. This principle would not have allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass Constitutional muster.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

No one has ever been forced by anti-discrimination laws to make a wedding website for a child marriage. Pedophiles, pederasts, and hebephiles aren't protected classes. They are not covered by the Equal Protection Clause. We are all free to discriminate against kid fuckers.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No.

No one is required to do that. They can do something else for a living.

Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

Your words of support ring hollow because you support the partial rolling back of equal rights protections.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes.

This is ahistorical.

In the 1960s, black people had the newly attained freedom to eat in what had previously been whites-only restaurants because new civil rights laws forced the issue. Racists didn't suddenly stop being racist out of nowhere. Widespread acceptance of societal changes didn't happen by accident. You are putting the cart before the horse. Widespread acceptance of societal changes happened because of the civil rights laws.

In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people.

No they didn't. This is another ahistorical claim. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, 56 years after race.

Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere

Your support for this right-wing SCOTUS ruling that partially rolls back equal rights belies this claim.

and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

 

[Copernicus]

You are correct: anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They also do not compel speech.

One thing that others haven't harped on, but you ought to think about, is that freedoms can conflict with each other. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, nor is any other freedom. But you seem to be elevating free speech above the right of a protected group to enjoy the same services and freedoms that other citizens do. Businesses are required to provide services to everyone equally, because they operate in the public commons and enjoy the protections and benefits that everyone funds through their taxes. So, being in the business to design wedding sites compels the provider to offer that service to everyone equally. If they discriminate against some group that is legally entitled to get married, then they infringe on the entitled freedom of some to purchase their design. So, if their speech is compelled under your interpretation, then their obligation as a business conflicts with their right of free speech. It is the role of government to resolve such disputes. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has used the 1st amendment to trump a 14th amendment right, which empowers government to enforce antidiscrimination laws. However, the 14th amendment, should prevail, since it was ratified well after the first. It carves out an exception to the First Amendment. Freedom of speech should not be allowed to cancel the freedoms granted people by the 14th. At least, that is the way I think it ought to work. The Supreme Courts seems to have the de facto power to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit. That effectively gives them the legislative and executive power to decree changes to our laws, even though they do not hold elective office.

 

[Toni]

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

The US went through that before... twice. Took 100 years for women to vote. It took 58 years to get the ball rolling from Plessy to Brown, then the Civil Rights Act and the application of interstate commerce. The problem with your principle based opinion is it creates islands. It could create large islands of prohibition. When I say "could" I mean, it did and will again.

This is porno all over again. The issue here is that bigoted people want to consider obscenity as anything they personally want to consider obscene. But the reality is, it isn't about obscenity at all, it is about bigotry against a class of people. And that bigotry is currently being given a pathway into the future via this legal hack. The arguments being made at the moment are camel noses under the tent that will expand the rights of individuals to interfere in the rights of minorities in receiving access to services they should have access to. Seriously, is hand crafting a cake and selling it, verses hand crafting a cake and writing two male names on a cake any different?

They are chipping at the stone and you are too trapped in the principle illusion they are putting together. This principle would not have allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass Constitutional muster.

I obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Remember some years back when the bakery refused to decorate a birthday cake with his name on it for a 3 year old named Adolph Hitler? I don’t have the patience to look for that thread but I’m pretty certain that most people here( including me) cheered the bakery for the refusal. As a side note, the parents later lost custody of their children, all with Nazi themed names.

Yes, yes: gay people are part of a protected class but the principal is the same: bakeries should not be compelled to write something on a cake that violates their principals. Even if their principals are wrong ( in our opinion).

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

 

[Toni]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

No one has ever been forced by anti-discrimination laws to make a wedding website for a child marriage. Pedophiles, pederasts, and hebephiles aren't protected classes. They are not covered by the Equal Protection Clause. We are all free to discriminate against kid fuckers.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No.

No one is required to do that. They can do something else for a living.

Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

Your words of support ring hollow because you support the partial rolling back of equal rights protections.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes.

This is ahistorical.

In the 1960s, black people had the newly attained freedom to eat in what had previously been whites-only restaurants because new civil rights laws forced the issue. Racists didn't suddenly stop being racist out of nowhere. Widespread acceptance of societal changes didn't happen by accident. You are putting the cart before the horse. Widespread acceptance of societal changes happened because of the civil rights laws.

In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people.

No they didn't. This is another ahistorical claim. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, 56 years after race.

Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere

Your support for this right-wing SCOTUS ruling that partially rolls back equal rights belies this claim.

and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

I think that your words ring very hollow because you are quite willing to not only interfere with someone’s right to free speech if you believe in the cause but you are willing to torture all logic and any sense of justice and equality justify the same behavior if it does not fall within the narrow parameters of that particular cause. Your sense of justice and equality are inconsistent and are skewed by your political beliefs.

More dangerously, this sort of logic absolutely will destroy the entire concept of protected groups.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

The US went through that before... twice. Took 100 years for women to vote. It took 58 years to get the ball rolling from Plessy to Brown, then the Civil Rights Act and the application of interstate commerce. The problem with your principle based opinion is it creates islands. It could create large islands of prohibition. When I say "could" I mean, it did and will again.

This is porno all over again. The issue here is that bigoted people want to consider obscenity as anything they personally want to consider obscene. But the reality is, it isn't about obscenity at all, it is about bigotry against a class of people. And that bigotry is currently being given a pathway into the future via this legal hack. The arguments being made at the moment are camel noses under the tent that will expand the rights of individuals to interfere in the rights of minorities in receiving access to services they should have access to. Seriously, is hand crafting a cake and selling it, verses hand crafting a cake and writing two male names on a cake any different?

They are chipping at the stone and you are too trapped in the principle illusion they are putting together. This principle would not have allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass Constitutional muster.

I obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Again, this concern is nonsensical because Nazi will never be a protected class.

Remember some years back when the bakery refused to decorate a birthday cake with his name on it for a 3 year old named Adolph Hitler? I don’t have the patience to look for that thread but I’m pretty certain that most people here( including me) cheered the bakery for the refusal. As a side note, the parents later lost custody of their children, all with Nazi themed names.

False equivalence. Nazi is not the same as gay or black or Mexican.

Yes, yes: gay people are part of a protected class but the principal is the same: bakeries should not be compelled to write something on a cake that violates their principals. Even if their principals are wrong ( in our opinion).

The principal is not the same. Gay and Nazi are not equivalent. This is why sexual orientation is a protected class and Nazi isn't.

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech.

This statement doesn't make logical sense in light of the fact that this right-wing SCOTUS ruling did not protect the status quo; it changed the status quo.

Do you think something was going to be chipped away if the court had gone with the liberal ruling?

I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

The US went through that before... twice. Took 100 years for women to vote. It took 58 years to get the ball rolling from Plessy to Brown, then the Civil Rights Act and the application of interstate commerce. The problem with your principle based opinion is it creates islands. It could create large islands of prohibition. When I say "could" I mean, it did and will again.

This is porno all over again. The issue here is that bigoted people want to consider obscenity as anything they personally want to consider obscene. But the reality is, it isn't about obscenity at all, it is about bigotry against a class of people. And that bigotry is currently being given a pathway into the future via this legal hack. The arguments being made at the moment are camel noses under the tent that will expand the rights of individuals to interfere in the rights of minorities in receiving access to services they should have access to. Seriously, is hand crafting a cake and selling it, verses hand crafting a cake and writing two male names on a cake any different?

They are chipping at the stone and you are too trapped in the principle illusion they are putting together. This principle would not have allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass Constitutional muster.

I obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Nazi and Nazi propaganda is unquestionably obscene. The Nazis would also be on the side of the bigot cake maker.

Remember some years back when the bakery refused to decorate a birthday cake with his name on it for a 3 year old named Adolph Hitler? I don’t have the patience to look for that thread but I’m pretty certain that most people here( including me) cheered the bakery for the refusal. As a side note, the parents later lost custody of their children, all with Nazi themed names.

Swastika, penis, curse words, NY Jets insignia... these are all obscenities. Names of two women are not obscenities. If you want to argue that people have the right to discriminate against customers based on the identity of the customer due to their own personal values, regardless of the protections against such in our Constitution and Constitutional Law, please make that argument.

But lets keep the obscenity out of it. Gays are not Nazis. Gays are not genitalia. Gays are not NY Jets fans (too much class for that). Gays (blacks, inter-racial couples, etc...) are not obscene.

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Odd you'd raise that, as those fighting for the principle to discriminate... eroded women's rights, and fought against women getting those rights in the first place. Like I noted, this has nothing to do with principles to them. It is a legal hack.

 

[Gospel]

The name 'United States' inherently implies a sense of unity, which is no coincidence. The Constitution, despite its arguably limited inclusivity in the beginning, was designed to unite individuals under one collective identity, rather than to sow division among them. Nowhere within the Preamble, Articles, Amendments, or Confederate Papers is there an implication that members of the in-group—which has been extended to include Black people—are permitted to discriminate amongst themselves. The idea is preposterous.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

No one has ever been forced by anti-discrimination laws to make a wedding website for a child marriage. Pedophiles, pederasts, and hebephiles aren't protected classes. They are not covered by the Equal Protection Clause. We are all free to discriminate against kid fuckers.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No.

No one is required to do that. They can do something else for a living.

Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

Your words of support ring hollow because you support the partial rolling back of equal rights protections.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes.

This is ahistorical.

In the 1960s, black people had the newly attained freedom to eat in what had previously been whites-only restaurants because new civil rights laws forced the issue. Racists didn't suddenly stop being racist out of nowhere. Widespread acceptance of societal changes didn't happen by accident. You are putting the cart before the horse. Widespread acceptance of societal changes happened because of the civil rights laws.

In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people.

No they didn't. This is another ahistorical claim. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, 56 years after race.

Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere

Your support for this right-wing SCOTUS ruling that partially rolls back equal rights belies this claim.

and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

I think that your words ring very hollow because you are quite willing to not only interfere with someone’s right to free speech if you believe in the cause but you are willing to torture all logic and any sense of justice and equality justify the same behavior if it does not fall within the narrow parameters of that particular cause. Your sense of justice and equality are inconsistent and are skewed by your political beliefs.

More dangerously, this sort of logic absolutely will destroy the entire concept of protected groups.

Question: is this also how you feel about the anti-discrimination laws that have been in place since the 1960s?

 

[Toni]

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

The US went through that before... twice. Took 100 years for women to vote. It took 58 years to get the ball rolling from Plessy to Brown, then the Civil Rights Act and the application of interstate commerce. The problem with your principle based opinion is it creates islands. It could create large islands of prohibition. When I say "could" I mean, it did and will again.

This is porno all over again. The issue here is that bigoted people want to consider obscenity as anything they personally want to consider obscene. But the reality is, it isn't about obscenity at all, it is about bigotry against a class of people. And that bigotry is currently being given a pathway into the future via this legal hack. The arguments being made at the moment are camel noses under the tent that will expand the rights of individuals to interfere in the rights of minorities in receiving access to services they should have access to. Seriously, is hand crafting a cake and selling it, verses hand crafting a cake and writing two male names on a cake any different?

They are chipping at the stone and you are too trapped in the principle illusion they are putting together. This principle would not have allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass Constitutional muster.

I obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Nazi and Nazi propaganda is unquestionably obscene. The Nazis would also be on the side of the bigot cake maker.

Remember some years back when the bakery refused to decorate a birthday cake with his name on it for a 3 year old named Adolph Hitler? I don’t have the patience to look for that thread but I’m pretty certain that most people here( including me) cheered the bakery for the refusal. As a side note, the parents later lost custody of their children, all with Nazi themed names.

Swastika, penis, curse words, NY Jets insignia... these are all obscenities. Names of two women are not obscenities. If you want to argue that people have the right to discriminate against customers based on the identity of the customer due to their own personal values, regardless of the protections against such in our Constitution and Constitutional Law, please make that argument.

But lets keep the obscenity out of it. Gays are not Nazis. Gays are not genitalia. Gays are not NY Jets fans (too much class for that). Gays (blacks, inter-racial couples, etc...) are not obscene.

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Odd you'd raise that, as those fighting for the principle to discriminate... eroded women's rights, and fought against women getting those rights in the first place. Like I noted, this has nothing to do with principles to them. It is a legal hack.

It has everything to do with principles and first amendment rights.

 

[Toni]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

No one has ever been forced by anti-discrimination laws to make a wedding website for a child marriage. Pedophiles, pederasts, and hebephiles aren't protected classes. They are not covered by the Equal Protection Clause. We are all free to discriminate against kid fuckers.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No.

No one is required to do that. They can do something else for a living.

Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

Your words of support ring hollow because you support the partial rolling back of equal rights protections.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes.

This is ahistorical.

In the 1960s, black people had the newly attained freedom to eat in what had previously been whites-only restaurants because new civil rights laws forced the issue. Racists didn't suddenly stop being racist out of nowhere. Widespread acceptance of societal changes didn't happen by accident. You are putting the cart before the horse. Widespread acceptance of societal changes happened because of the civil rights laws.

In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people.

No they didn't. This is another ahistorical claim. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, 56 years after race.

Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere

Your support for this right-wing SCOTUS ruling that partially rolls back equal rights belies this claim.

and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

I think that your words ring very hollow because you are quite willing to not only interfere with someone’s right to free speech if you believe in the cause but you are willing to torture all logic and any sense of justice and equality justify the same behavior if it does not fall within the narrow parameters of that particular cause. Your sense of justice and equality are inconsistent and are skewed by your political beliefs.

More dangerously, this sort of logic absolutely will destroy the entire concept of protected groups.

Question: is this also how you feel about the anti-discrimination laws that have been in place since the 1960s?

Which anti-discrimination laws do you mean?

I absolutely am 100% am in favor of treating everyone equally and of never discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, national origin, etc.

I am as fully committed to first amendment rights and not forcing someone to create content that violates their principles.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

No one has ever been forced by anti-discrimination laws to make a wedding website for a child marriage. Pedophiles, pederasts, and hebephiles aren't protected classes. They are not covered by the Equal Protection Clause. We are all free to discriminate against kid fuckers.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No.

No one is required to do that. They can do something else for a living.

Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

Your words of support ring hollow because you support the partial rolling back of equal rights protections.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes.

This is ahistorical.

In the 1960s, black people had the newly attained freedom to eat in what had previously been whites-only restaurants because new civil rights laws forced the issue. Racists didn't suddenly stop being racist out of nowhere. Widespread acceptance of societal changes didn't happen by accident. You are putting the cart before the horse. Widespread acceptance of societal changes happened because of the civil rights laws.

In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people.

No they didn't. This is another ahistorical claim. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, 56 years after race.

Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere

Your support for this right-wing SCOTUS ruling that partially rolls back equal rights belies this claim.

and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

I think that your words ring very hollow because you are quite willing to not only interfere with someone’s right to free speech if you believe in the cause but you are willing to torture all logic and any sense of justice and equality justify the same behavior if it does not fall within the narrow parameters of that particular cause. Your sense of justice and equality are inconsistent and are skewed by your political beliefs.

More dangerously, this sort of logic absolutely will destroy the entire concept of protected groups.

Question: is this also how you feel about the anti-discrimination laws that have been in place since the 1960s?

Which anti-discrimination laws do you mean?

All of them together as they existed before this recent court ruling.

I absolutely am 100% am in favor of treating everyone equally and of never discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, national origin, etc.

So you say, even as you support the rolling back of civil rights protections that have been in place since the 1960s.

I am as fully committed to first amendment rights and not forcing someone to create content that violates their principles.

For the umpteenth time, they can do something else for a living. No one is forcing that bigot to make wedding websites, thus no one is forcing her to violate her principles.

 

[Copernicus]

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Then you should be concerned that a doctor cannot be compelled to counsel a pregnant woman on all her health care options, including contraception. After all, the doctor might be conscientiously opposed to giving advice that could trigger immoral behavior.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't believe this is a free speech issue. When someone hangs out their shingle to be a web designer and website design is speech, they are asking for their speech to be directed by the client.

And please stop bringing up fucking Nazis.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't believe this is a free speech issue. When someone hangs out their shingle to be a web designer and website design is speech, they are asking for their speech to be directed by the client.

And please stop bringing up fucking Nazis.

And it is worth pointing out that the person offering the web designer service is free to express anti-gay bigotry outside of their business. It's just that the business itself is not allowed to discriminate because the owner is a bigot. Owners can grit their teeth and comply, or stop offering the service to the public. Their right to freedom of expression is not infringed in any way except in the context of providing a business service to the public. If they offer creative content, the citizens cannot be deprived of the right to purchase that creative content just because the business owner hates the protected group they belong to. The business owner is free to discriminate in the context of a private club or as an individual rather than an owner of a public-facing business. At least, that's the way it used to be before this 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court.

 

[Gospel]

obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Why do you insist on comparing all of the below (VIA protected class) to Nazis?

• Race
• Color
• Religion (Does not include political ideologies like Nazis)
• Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity)
• National origin
• Age (40 and older)
• Disability
• Genetic information
• Familial status (having children)
• Military status

It's like comparing the sun to a piece of shit on the ground. They're not related & It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have the right to freedom of expression.
We do not have the right to have any job.

Are you even aware of the consequences of your position? You're requiring ideological conformity to a particular belief in order for a person to be allowed to have a fucking job.

Seriously, you're a pubic hair away from "Only atheist democrats are allowed to have jobs".

And, if you haven't yet made that connection - predicating employment on the beliefs of the applicant is absolutely a violation of the 1st amendment in the US. The only exception is for employment positions in a literal church. Even companies that are owned by religious people, with religiously inspired business practices can't limit employment to only people that adhere to their religion. Hobby Lobby can't deny employment to a jewish or muslim or atheist on the basis of their religion.

The sheer level of illiberal authoritarian perspective involved in "Only people who believe what I want them to believe are allowed to have jobs that I think they should have" is astonishing.

 

[Toni]

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Then you should be concerned that a doctor cannot be compelled to counsel a pregnant woman on all her health care options, including contraception. After all, the doctor might be conscientiously opposed to giving advice that could trigger immoral behavior.

Of course I'm concerned about that.

That particular case should never have gone to the Colorado Supreme Court, much less the USSC. In fact, I am hoping that it will be challenged based on the fact that there was no such website creator and no customer.

This IS different than compelling someone to create content that is contrary to their beliefs but I definitely understand the very very similar principle.

Re: Health care provider. A health care provider who is employed by a health care system is compelled to practice in accordance with various state guidelines and AMA guidelines and best practices and also within the guidelines and best practices of that particular medical practice. A medical care provider can choose another practice or practice on their own but they must take care that they are following pertinent medical care guidelines.

I actually changed doctors because he changed his practice to only do deliveries at a Catholic hospital, which was unacceptable to me. Seeking out a new obstetrician when one is pregnant is not much fun, especially when one must find one who is covered by your insurance, is located conveniently, and who is accepting new patients (HUGE issue) and who will perform a tubal ligation immediately upon delivery by scheduled c-section, which I knew I would have. Much more at stake than finding a web designer for your perfect wedding website.

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Then you should be concerned that a doctor cannot be compelled to counsel a pregnant woman on all her health care options, including contraception. After all, the doctor might be conscientiously opposed to giving advice that could trigger immoral behavior.

I’m actually more concerned about doctors being forbidden to counsel patients on all options, most obviously pregnant women.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you want there to be less bigotry in the world, you have to force the issue and make the bigots feel uncomfortable.

If you want there to be less bigotry in the world, you should probably not make an effort to be intentionally bigoted against a group of people, and probably shouldn't advocate for other people to engage in bigotry against them too.